A pdf version this article is available here
On The Nature of Abstractions
For the Philosophy of The Numen (that is, for The Numinous Way) an
abstraction is a manifestation of the
primary error of conventional causal thinking; that is, of assuming
only a causal linearality - of
using causal reductionism, that simple
cause-and-effect that excludes the acausal knowing that empathy
provides and which the numinous is a manifestation of. Implicit in
abstractions is the notion of - the illusion of - the separateness of
beings.[1]
Abstractions thus hide the true
nature of Reality - which is both
causal and
acausal [2] - and which Reality can be
apprehended by means
of both causal
and acausal thinking, which processes, or types of knowing,
present to us both causal knowledge [3] and
acausal knowledge [4].
In
essence,
an
abstraction
is
the
manufacture, and use of,
some idea, ideal, "image" or
category, and thus some
generalization, and/or some assignment of an individual or individuals
- and/or some being, some "thing" - to some group or category with the
implicit acceptance of the separateness, in causal Space-Time, of such
being/things/individuals. The
positing of some "perfect"
or "ideal" form, category, or thing, is part of abstraction.
Thus, the nature of abstraction resides in causality, with causal
knowing revealing only the causal aspect, the causal nature, of beings.
In contrast, acausal knowing reveals (uncovers) the connexions between
beings - the dependant nature of beings - and thus places beings in the
context of Being, and thus uncovers the acausal nature of beings, with
Being having both a causal and an acausal nature.
The error of abstractionism - of using existing abstractions and
manufacturing other abstractions and using these as the source of
ethics, of judgement, and so ascribing a value to them - is the error
of ὕβρις (hubris). That is, the error of unbalance: of
neglecting or being unaware of empathy, and of neglecting or being
unaware of or profaning the numinous [5].
In the personal
and social sense, ὕβρις is revealed in a lack of compassion,
a lack of balanced reasoning, and not only ascribing to one's self (or
some other abstraction, such as a nation-State) what is assumed to be
the perfection of right and of good (or the best current approximation
of it) but also acting on that presumption to the detriment, the harm,
of others [6].
This is unethical - as all abstractions are inherently unethical -
because what is ethical is determined by empathy, and thus cannot be
abstracted out of that direct, immediate, and personal knowing which
presences empathy in us, as human beings [7].
The Unethical Abstraction of The Civilizing Process
The error of abstractionism - of using existing abstractions and
manufacturing other abstractions and using these as the source of
ethics, of judgement, and so ascribing a value to them - is also the
error
of understanding πόλεμος
(polemos) as a
causal dialectic and as the abstraction of 'progression' that is, of
some 'progress'/evolution resulting from such πόλεμος-as-dialectic
being
applied in a practical way (as a process of change), with the change
inherent in this application of πόλεμος being
regarded as necessary and as good.
This particular error - of πόλεμος mis-understood
as a dialectic involving opposites [8] - is most
manifest,
philosophically and in that
social construct often termed society, in what has been termed
"the civilizing
process", and which process (to wit, we mortals allegedly becoming
civilized or more
civilized) involves constant change and a continuing development. This
is the acceptance of the idea that there is "something", in some future
- near or
distant - that can be and should be striven toward, and this
"something"
is always some ideal, or more perfect, form of something that either
already exists or which, it is alleged, can be manufactured (brought
into being) if certain things (within one's self, or within society,
for
instance) are changed in accord with some other manufactured idea or
abstraction, or deriving from some -ism or some -ology
(be these deemed to be political, social or religious).
There is thus the instability of unbalance, of ὕβρις - a
belief in a necessary and continuing causal (linear) progression toward
something considered to be better than what exists now or has existed,
and that nothing is immune or should be immune to this causal change.
Why of ὕβρις?
Because there is no balance of empathy; no balance arising from that
acausal knowing which predisposes us toward compassion, the immediacy
of
personal interaction, and wu-wei [9];
instead,
there
is
- in
the illustrative (though not philosophically accurate) sense, the
triumph - in that social construct often termed society - of the
Jungian animus over the anima. That is, there is a distinct lack of
natural balance both within the individual and within social constructs
such as society.
In a more accurate philosophical way, this is the loss of ψυχή
[10] (and thus a lack of knowing of and
appreciation of the
numinous)
and the dominance of the error of πόλεμος-as-dialectic, and
which πόλεμος-as-dialectic tends
always,
by
its
nature
as
an
abstraction, towards ὕβρις.
In addition, this so-called "civilizing
process" (involving change) is predicated on the assumption, the
abstraction, of there
existing something termed civilization, or of it being possible to
manufacture (to progress toward) this something, this abstraction,
termed civilization. For however civilization is or has been
defined, it is always an abstraction because all such definitions by
their very nature are impersonal, devoid of acausal knowing and the
empathy of the immediacy of personal knowing. That is, they all ignore
our nature as empathic beings (and thus our acausal nature and our
connexion to other life) for all such definitions depend on (1) large
supra-personal collocations such as "city" (urban living) or some
State, and/or on (2) the large-scale centralization of resources,
especially fiscal and military; and/or on (3) some definition of what
is termed "civilized values" deriving from causal theories of ethics
[11], and/or on (4) some definition of
the importance (and
sanctity,
or whatever) of the individual, perceived as the individual is as some
separate (that is, causal-only) being. Many definitions are based on
all
four categories.
In essence, therefore, the very
notion of "civilization" is unethical, because it both classifies, and
excludes, based on some abstract criteria, some abstract non-empathic
judgement of others (that is, of who and what is deemed to be
"civilized").
Similarly, the very notions of "progress" and of some "civilizing
process" are unethical because they predispose individuals toward the
unbalanced disruption of and the striving for some type of perfection
or ideal, and which striving (because it is a causal striving) always
entails placing that ideal or that abstraction before the compassion
born of empathy, and which always tends toward creating suffering, and
always involves a loss of numinosity: of that delicate, reasoned,
balance that an empathic awareness brings to we human beings.
For "civilization" assigns an abstract moral value to individuals, and
judges
them according to some abstract category or categories, and rather than
decreasing πόλεμος-as-dialectic, this abstraction,
such judgement, actually
increases it
and the ὕβρις inherent therein. For, according to this
abstraction, one is or can become (by a causal, linear, striving - by πόλεμος-as-dialectic),
"civilized",
and,
also
according
to
this
abstraction,
being
"civilized"
is
inherently better than, superior to, being a "barbarian" - and even
more, according to this abstraction, being "civilized" is the state of
human existence we should all strive to attain and we should encourage
others to attain, for such encouragement of them, such a changing
of them, is regarded, by the adherents of this abstraction, as their
moral duty.
Thus, and for instance, there
is the demand for some people, somewhere, to "become civilized" with
some people, or more often these days, some nation-State held as as an
example (an ideal)
for others to emulate: to progress toward. In addition, those deemed
uncivilized can be fought, and force used to "make them civilized" or
at least alter their social structures so that they can be given the
opportunity to "become civilized" or "progress toward" being so.
For once some abstract category is assigned some moral value - as in
the case of "civilization" which is regarded as "good" and "necessary"
if not superior to everything else - then there is a tendency toward
suffering. Indeed, one could write with some justification that the
abstractions of "civilization", and of a linear "progress" toward some
form of perfection (and some future state of happiness or future
peace are abstractions of an abstract perfection), have been and are
the among the most disruptive in human history, as well as being the
cause of great suffering for century upon century.
Thus, the abstraction termed civilization - however defined - usurps
the empathy of the immediacy of the moment, and the compassion arising
from it, just as the abstraction of a linear "progress" usurps wu-wei.
Both
lead
to
ὕβρις and thus to the loss of ψυχή, a loss of
our natural
balance, a loss of ἁρμονίη and συμπάθεια in respect
of Φύσις [12]; a natural
balance which enables us to feel,
know, and appreciate, the numinous - and thus live in a numinous way.
David Myatt
November 2010 CE
(Revised 2455670.731)
Footnotes:
[1] Refer to An Introduction To The Ontology of
Being
[2] Refer to An Introduction To The Ontology of
Being and also Ontology,
Ethics
and
The
Numinous
Way.
[3] Causal knowledge derives from both the use of λόγος
(and
thus from the application of logic) and from experimental science, for
which see The Pathei-Mathos of Experimental Science in The
Classical Foundations of The Numinous Way.
[4] Acausal knowing derives - currently - from the
faculty of empathy:
see, for example, Acausality, Phainómenon, and The
Appearance of Causality.
[5] ὕβρις is the error of personal
insolence, of going
beyond the proper limits set by reasoned (balanced) judgement - σωφρονεῖν
-
and by an awareness, a personal knowing, of the numinous, and
which knowing of the numinous is provided by empathy. For a discussion
of ὕβρις in the context of σωφρονεῖν and of Δίκα,
see
my
essay
Quid Est Veritas?
[6] This lack of balanced reasoning, this lack of
compassion (a lack of
empathy) and this presumption of arrogantly assuming one knows what is
justice and of having the right to apply it, to dispense it, to others
are typical signs of the tyrant.
Classic personal examples are the characters of Oedipus in Oedipus
Tyrannus by Sophocles, and Creon in Antigone, also by
Sophocles. Both of these individuals commit the error of hubris due to
their continuing unbalanced assertion - based on a neglect of both
reasoned judgement and of the numen (re-presented in those dramas by
the gods and their customs) - that they "know" and have a right (the
ability) to decide what is good and what is wrong.
A classic impersonal example is the modern nation-State which ascribes
to itself the presumption of judgement of other individuals and the
presumption of knowing what it regards is "right" and "wrong". The
presumption of judgement of other individuals is enshrined in the
so-called Courts of Law/Justice of the State, and the presumption of
knowing what it regards is "right" and "wrong" is enshrined in the laws
which it makes, the transgression of which the State deems is
punishable by whatever measures it deems appropriate. All these make
the modern nation-State an example of the impersonal tyrant.
[7] For empathy as the source of ethics, refer to Ontology,
Ethics
and
The
Numinous
Way and also An Introduction To The Ontology of Being.
[8]
For an overview of this error of πόλεμος-as-dialectic, see my
Some Notes on Πόλεμος
and Δίκη in Heraclitus B80 and also my essay The
Abstraction of Change as Opposites and Dialectic.
[9] wu-wei (a Taoist word) is letting-be, and
results from
empathy;
from being sympathetically and compassionately aware of other life,
other beings, and not desiring to interfere with such life. See my
essay Living The Numinous Way contained in Three Essays
Regarding The Numinous Way.
[10] Correctly understood, ψυχή is Life qua
being. That
is,
it is the matrix of connexions - of connected beings - that empathy
reveals, and expresses (or is a manifestation of, for us) the true
(acausal and causal) nature of Being itself. See also footnote 11 in my
essay Quid Est Veritas?
[11] For example, the definition of barbarism as
opposed to moral
("civilized") values, with moral values being based on an abstract
(non-numinous) morality, as posited, for example, by Aristotle, Plato,
Hume or Kant. In Kant, for instance, one has the autonomous individual
- that is, the separate individual of causality and of causal knowing.
However, in respect of Kant, while his principle of morality - that a
person should act on the presumption that his own individual action
could became a universal law which others use - might vaguely suggest
empathy, his assumption of there being an imperative universal good
logically leads to the assumption of there being a supra-human entity
(deity) behind such an imperative, and these assumptions militate
against natural empathy.
According to The Numinous Way, empathy is a natural human faculty (or
ability), which can be, but which often is not, used.
[12] For συν-πάθος see, for example, An
Introduction To The
Ontology of Being. For Φύσις see, for example, Quid
Est
Veritas?
In respect of ἁρμονίη:
"...the numinous is what predisposes us not to
commit ὕβρις – that is, what continues or maintains or
manifests ἁρμονίη and thus καλλός; the
natural balance – sans abstractions – that enables us to know
and appreciate, and which uncovers, Φύσις and λόγος,
and τὸ καλόν." Pre-Socratic Philosophy,
The Numinous Way, Aesthetics, and Other Questions
